STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ZINABHAI RANGHHODJI DARJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in which the legislation which came up for interpretation has been characterised by the High Court as confused and obscure.

(2.) The facts may be succinctly stated. In the elections to the Vyara Taluka Panchayat which took place in 1968 respondent No.1 was elected as a member. At the first meeting of the Taluka Panchayat he was elected as its President. Thereupon he became ex-officio member of the Surat District Panchayat by virtue of Section 15 (1) (A) (i) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act 1961, hereinafter called the 'Panchayats Act.' He was ultimately elected as President of the Surat District Panchayat. He ceased to hold his office of President of the Taluka Panchayat. Surat District consists of several Talukas; one of such Talukas is called Chorashi Taluka for which a Taluka Panchayat was constituted under the provisions of the Panchayats Act. Two areas known as Rander and Adajan were subject to the authority of the Surat District Panchayat and the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat. Rander had a Nagar Panchayat and Adajan had a Gram Panchayat. On January 16, 1970,a notification was issued by the State Government under Section 3 (3) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act 1949, to be referred to as the 'Corporations Act' by which the local areas of Rander and Adaian were inculded within the limits of the Surat Municipal Corproation. This was followed by a notification dated January 21, 1970 under Section 9 (2) of the Panchayats Act declaring that the local area of Rander shall cease to be a Nagar and that of Adajan shall cease to be a Gram with effect from February 1, 1970. The net result was that Rander and Adajan stood excluded from the limits of the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat. A notification was issued on June 13, 1963 by the Development Commissioner in exercise of the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 310-A of the Pnchayats Act and delegated to him dissolving the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and Surat District Panchayat with effect from January 11, 1971 with a direction that the members of the dissolved Panchayat shall vacate offices and that the Taluka and District Panchayats shall be reconstituted with memebers specified in clause 3 of the Order read with Schedules 1 and 2, Respondent No.1 having ceased to hold office as President of the Vyara Taluka Panchayat when he was elected as President of the Surat District Panchayat could not be as ex-officio member of the reconstituted Surat District Panchayat becasue he had ceased to be an ex-officio member as such. He was not an elected member of the Surat District Panchayat and was not appointed a member under Section 310-A (2) (b) of the Panchayat Act. He, therefore, ceased to be a member of the Surat District Panchayat as reconstituted. This led to the cessation of his holding the office of the President of that Panchayat. He filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of dissolution and reconstitution made by the Developement Commissioner.

(3.) Before the High Court two main grounds were taken on behalf of respondent No.1 The first was that the Development Commissioner as a delegate of the State Government had no power to dissolve the Chorashi Taluka Panchayat and the Surat District Panchayat under Section 310-A (1) of the Panchayats Act by reason of the provisions contained in sub-section (10) of that section. The second point was that the order had been made by the Development Commissioner mala fide. The High Court decided the first question against the State and held that by reason of the exception contained in Section 310-A (10) of the Panchayats Act the Development Commissioner had no power to dissolve the Panchayat in question under sub-section (1) of that section. The second point was not gone into as it was considered unnecessary to decide it.